The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To assess EQ-5D-5L (5L) validity in patients with acute stroke, in comparison with EQ-5D-3L (3L). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 408 patients during index hospitalization. We compared 5L and 3L in terms of feasibility, frequency of unique health states, ceiling effect and discriminatory power (informativity). We assessed construct validity in terms of known-groups validity and convergent validity of 5L dimensions with other stroke outcome measures. RESULTS: The overall proportion of patients with acute stroke reporting 'no problems' with 3L-6.1 % was further reduced to 5.6 % with 5L (relative reduction of 8.2 %). The highest improvement in relative discriminatory power, when moving from 3L to 5L, was noticed in pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions (Shannon Evenness Index 0.91 for both 5L dimensions; relative increase 34.4 and 29.1 %, respectively). Known-groups validity tests confirmed prior hypotheses: Health state utilities were lower in following subpopulations-females, patients with high modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, low Barthel Index (BI) or VAS score, patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage or intracerebral hemorrhage, and when proxy respondent was used. Convergence of EQ-5D-5L dimensions with mRS, BI and EQ VAS was improved or at least the same as for 3L dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the validity of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system as a generic health outcome measure in patients with acute stroke, demonstrating some psychometric advantages in comparison with EQ-5D-3L.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The EQ-5D-5L (Herdman et al., 2011) had good internal reliability (ICC = .57)and testretest reliability (ICC = .69)across health samples (Janssen, Birnie, Haagsma, & Bonsel, 2008) and has been validated in stroke samples (Dorman, Waddell, Slattery, Dennis, & Sandercock, 1997;Golicki et al., 2015).”
From Brief group‐based acceptance and commitment therapy for stroke survivors. (2019) · cites this paper as Golicki et al., 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Test-retest reliability was reported as ICC = .51across health samples (Janssen et al., 2008) and has been validated in stroke samples (Dorman et al., 1997;Golicki et al., 2015).”
From Brief group‐based acceptance and commitment therapy for stroke survivors. (2019) · cites this paper as Golicki et al., 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · Cited by 88,486
Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x · Cited by 9,795 · cited 1×
“Recently, the EuroQol group has introduced new, five level, version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) [7].”
BackgroundSelf-citationEuroQol: the current state of play
Brooks, R. (1996) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6 · Cited by 5,815
Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials
Pater, J. L. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(97)82191-5 · Cited by 2,410
Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets
van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y.-S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., Lloyd, A., Scalone, L., Kind, P., & Pickard, A. S. (2012) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 · Cited by 2,153
Self-citationQuality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials
Spilker, B. (1996) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 1,862
Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., Swinburn, P., & Busschbach, J. (2013) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4 · Cited by 1,582
Self-citationQuality of Life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007) · Cited by 1,419
Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient‐Reported Outcomes
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007) · doi:10.1002/9780470024522 · Cited by 865
Barthel Index for Stroke Trials
Quinn, T. J., Langhorne, P., & Stott, D. J. (2011) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.110.598540 · Cited by 577
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Campbell, B. C. V., Silva, D. A. D., Macleod, M. R., Coutts, S. B., Schwamm, L. H., Davis, S. M., & Donnan, G. A. (2019) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0118-8 · Cited by 1,965
Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature
Feng, Y.-S., Kohlmann, T., Janssen, M. F., & Buchholz, I. (2021) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-020-02688-y · Cited by 917
Self-citationBuchholz, I., Janssen, M. F., Kohlmann, T., & Feng, Y. (2018) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5 · Cited by 357
Self-citationChen, P., Lin, K.-C., Liing, R.-J., Wu, C.-Y., Chen, C.-L., & Chang, K.-C. (2016) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1196-z · Cited by 220
Bilbao‐González, A., García‐Pérez, L., Arenaza, J. C., García, I. A., Ariza-Cardiel, G., Trujillo, E., Forjaz, M. J., & Martín‐Fernández, J. (2018) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1929-x · Cited by 211
Metadata
- Authors
- Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Buczek, J., Karlińska, A., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., & Pickard, A. S.
- Affiliations
- Medical University of Warsaw (PL)
- Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology (PL)
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Golicki, Dominik
- Venue
- Quality of Life Research
- Published
- 2014-10-28
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 845-850
- ISSN
- 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2649
- PMC
- PMC4366565
- OpenAlex
- W2021768440
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 20.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L, acute stroke, health-related quality of life, construct validity, known-groups validity, convergent validity, ceiling effect, discriminatory power, proxy respondents, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Cerebral Infarction, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Female, Health Status, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Orthotic Devices, Pain, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Young Adult, Self Report
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
